Youth Work Practice

Tony Jeffs, Mark K. Smith

• Publisher: Bloomsbury Academic
• Year: 2010
• Print ISBN: 9780230543027
• eBook ISBN: 9781350314214
• Edition: 2
• Topic: Social Sciences
• Subtopic: Social Work
• Index: Social Sciences

A contemporary reflection on current practice, this book gets to the heart of what 'youth work' is about. It provides an in-depth overview and analysis of practice, addressing the many experiences of working with young people through insightful chapters written by practitioners themselves.

1

Introducing youth work

Tony Jeffs and Mark K. Smith

A lot of people call themselves ‘youth workers’. They can be found in many settings – in churches and religious organisations, local voluntary groups and in large international movements such as the Young Men’s Christian Association (YMCA), and scouting and guiding. Schools and colleges, prisons, large not-for-profit organisations and state-provided children’s and young people services also host what they describe as ‘youth work’. New forms and locations are appearing all the time, and organisational boundaries have shifted at some speed in many countries over the last few years. Yet much of this movement, although significant, can serve as a distraction by encouraging us to focus attention on the way youth work is organised and managed instead of looking to its core features and what it does. For that reason we focus on practice – the judgements, values, ideas and activities that have consistently served to give it a discrete identity (Carter et al. 1995: 3–5). We attend to the ways in which youth workers think, feel and act, and what informs such processes.

What is youth work?

For over 150 years, five elements have fused to delineate what we now know as youth work and to distinguish it from other welfare activities. It is distinctive only when all are present. Remove one and what is observed may possess a resemblance to, but is unquestionably not, youth work. The five are a focus on:–

Voluntary participation. The voluntary principle delineates youth work from almost all other services provided for this age group (Jeffs 2001: 156). Young people have, traditionally, been able to freely enter into relationships with youth workers and to end those relationships when they want. This has fundamental implications for the ways in which workers operate and the opportunities open to them. It encourages them to think and work in rather more dialogical ways (op. cit.); develop programmes attractive to young people; and to go to the places where they are (see, also, Davies 2005). In an increasingly regulated world that offers young people fewer and fewer genuine opportunities to exercise judgement – as opposed to being invited to participate and ‘be listened to’ – the chance to voluntarily engage with a worker or agency is a rare opportunity for them to act as citizens, and to meet with others.

Education and welfare. Historically, youth work did not develop to simply ‘keep people off the streets’, offer activities or provide amusement. Many early clubs grew out of Sunday schools and ragged schools, institutions that placed great emphasis on offering welfare and educational provision for young people (Montague 1904). The rise of the welfare state and expansion of state education during the late nineteenth to early and mid-twentieth centuries eradicated the need for youth agencies to provide mainstream welfare and educational services. With developments and changes in state support mechanisms, and the identification of other needs, the pattern of welfare provision shifted – but remains a significant element of youth work. Contemporary examples of this include support groups, counselling, careers advice and information and advice services relating to areas such as sexual health and housing. However, during the course of all these changes learning from being part of group life remained a key element. Over time the recognition of the value and importance of such learning was further enhanced as workers incorporated ideas and modes of practice developed to deepen practice not only within youth work but also within adult education and community work. Informal education (Brew 1946), social education (most notably Davies and Gibson 1967), experiential learning (Kolb 1976) and, more recently, social pedagogy are examples here. Each of these traditions encourages us to focus on learning through conversation, experience and relationship (see Jeffs and Smith 2005).

Young people. Although there have been shifts in age boundaries, youth work remains an age-specific activity. In Wales, for example, this is defined by a recent government strategy document as 11–25 years (Welsh Assembly Government 2007). While there may be problems around how we talk about and define youth – and around the sorts of expertise those working with young people can claim – there can be no doubting that many young people both view their experiences as being different to other age groups and seek out each other’s company (Savage 2007). Youth workers have traditionally responded to this – and learnt to tap into the ways of understanding the world young people occupy and the nuances of youth cultures.

Association, relationship and community. ‘Building relationships’ has been central to both the rhetoric and practice of much youth work. Relationships are seen as a fundamental source of learning and of happiness. The aim is to work with young people in community so that they might better relate to themselves, others and the world. Those within religious settings might well add in relationship to God. Association – joining together in companionship or to undertake some task, and the educative power of playing one’s part in a group or association (Doyle and Smith 1999: 44) – has been part of working with young people from early on and was articulated in the Albemarle Report. It argued that encouraging ‘young people to come together into groups of their own choosing is the fundamental task of the Service’ (Ministry of Education 1960: 52). Historically, group work – the ability to enter, engage with and develop various types of social collectivities – was viewed as the central skill required of a youth worker (see, for example, Coyle 1948; Matthews 1966; Button 1974; Robertson 2005; Newman and Robertson 2006). Youth work is fundamentally about community; about working, as John Dewey (1916) put it, so that all may share in the common life. It is an activity of communities.

Being friendly, accessible and responsive while acting with integrity. Youth work has come to be characterised by a belief that workers should not only be approachable and friendly, but they should also have faith in people and seek to live good lives. In other words, the person or character of the worker is of fundamental importance. As Basil Henriques put it (1933: 60): ‘However much self-government in the club may be emphasised, the success of the club depends upon the personality and ingenuity of the leader.’ The head of the club, he continued, must ‘get to know and to understand really well every individual member. He must have it felt that he is their friend and servant’ (ibid.: 61). Or as Josephine Macalister Brew (1957: 112–113) put it, ‘young people want to know where they are and they need the friendship of those who have confidence and faith.’ The settings workers help to build should be convivial; the relationships they form should be honest and characterised by ‘give and take’; and the programmes they are involved in should be flexible (Hirsch 2005).

When thinking about these five elements it is also important to recognise the context in which they were forged. Since its inception youth work has overwhelmingly been undertaken by volunteers and workers operating in the context of local groups and clubs. These groups, in turn, are often part of national and international movements. Scouting and guiding provide a very visible and constant example of this. Youth work was born, and remains fundamentally a part, of civil society – that space located betwixt the realms of the state and the market, wherein individuals and collectives seek to serve and provide for other citizens. Civil society is the domain of religious organisation, family and, above all else, the voluntary association that allows citizens, as opposed to consumers, customers and clients, to exercise their freedom and through voluntary endeavour give expression to the deeper meanings of citizenship. In Ireland where youth work is defined in law, this is recognised. It is to be provided ‘primarily by voluntary youth work organizations’ (Government of Ireland 2001; see also Devlin 2008). The more the state becomes involved in the detail of youth work and seeks to direct practice, the more it risks destroying the work and the benefits it brings (Jeffs and Smith 2008). As Benjamin Barber explains, it is within the realms of civil society that we can find the alternatives to ‘government gargantuanism and either market greed or identitarian parochialism’ (1998: 44). Voluntary youth work for approaching two centuries has been one of those ‘alternatives’ serving and validating the intrinsic worth of civil society and the public domain.

The long trail of history and the dominance of the voluntary sector are often overlooked. Much contemporary comment is focused on the problems and travails of the statutory or state sector. The ‘trade’ press is enthralled by the Beadledom and bumbledom of state agencies seeking to micro-manage practice from afar via circulars, regulation and an unremitting flow of short-term funding initiatives and franchises. Yet, the broad-base of voluntary effort carries on regardless. As with the oft-cited iceberg, the greater part of the edifice still lies beneath the surface, and therefore all too often out of sight. It is crucial that due care and attention is paid to the voluntary sector. Partly this is necessary to focus attention upon the need to protect it from the backwash caused by the floundering of the state-sponsored work, but also so that practitioners do not become needlessly pessimistic regarding the future health and well-being of youth work.

It is doubtful if any other welfare sector now possesses anything approaching a similar balance between paid and voluntary workers. Health, social work, schooling and social housing are each dominated by professionals directly employed by the state or by agencies predominately reliant on central or local government funding and therefore dancing to the tune of their outcomes and outputs. This singular difference makes it far easier to be confident regarding the long-term survival and vibrancy of youth work as an activity. Voluntarism provides, over time, a cushion against the vagaries of state funding, the inconsistencies of policy and the negative impact of economic upheavals. It gifts a promise of continuity.

The benefits of youth work

Youth workers have rightly tended over the years to be suspicious of the quest for immediate outcome. As Brew (1957: 183) put it, ‘A youth leader must try not to be too concerned about results, and at all costs not to be over-anxious.’ Informal education and the forms of ‘being there’ for young people that are involved in youth groups and clubs are based, essentially, in hope and faith (see Doyle and Smith forthcoming; Halpin 2003a, 2003b). Such an orientation is more likely to find a home within religious and community organisations and groups than within the target-driven culture of state-sponsored provision and some trust-funded work. However, it is possible to identify the benefits of local youth work. These can be grouped around five main headings. Locally organised, community-based provision offers:

Sanctuary. A safe space away from the daily surveillance and pressures of families, schooling and street life is one of the fundamental elements of successful local youth organisations (see McLaughlin et al. 1994; Doyle and Smith forthcoming). Barton Hirsch (2005) found such organisations were attractive to young people in significant part as they provided a second home. They are often places where workers care and young people are valued, respected and have choice (Spence et al. 2007: 43). This is all the more significant as current policy concerns with ‘joined-up services’ and with monitoring young people are eroding such space within state-sponsored provision and, more generally, public space. The emphasis upon the collection of data within state-sponsored services discourages some young people, who are anxious to retain their privacy and autonomy, from engaging with workers. Almost certainly it results in others opting to avoid ‘disclosure’ on the justifiable grounds that what they say will not be treated as confidential. It also represents a major attack on the rights of young people. Three of the major databases affecting children and young people in England, for example – ContactPoint, the electronic Common Assessment Framework and ONSET – were found by the Joseph Rowntree Reform Trust to be ‘almost certainly illegal under human rights or data protection law and should be scrapped or substantially redesigned’ (Anderson et al. 2009: 5). Finally collecting and processing data severely erodes the time available to workers that can be devoted to face-to-face contact and the sustaining of relationships. Research indicates that in some projects even before the introduction of mass databasing between a fifth and a quarter of the workers designated time was devoted to handling data (Crimmens et al. 2004).

Enjoyable activity. This activity ranges from hanging about with friends through participation in arts and sports to organizing the group itself. As Spence et al. (2007: 134) concluded, ‘It is the open informality of youth work which encourages the engagement of young people who refuse other institutional participation.’ Ahmed et al. (2007: xi) similarly found that the young people in their study ‘especially valued creative and informal approaches, which enabled them to have a say’. Studies of those participating in more open forms of youth work have consistently shown that young people particularly value the space for social interaction and for hanging about with friends and peers (earlier research includes Bone and Ross 1972; Department of Education and Science 1983). However, a significant number of young people seek out, welcome and benefit from involvement in more focused activities and the opportunities for enjoyment and development they offer (Feinstein et al. 2007). Structured programmes of activities are not without problems though. As Hirsch (2005: 135) found, they have the potential to diminish the quality of interpersonal relationships, and can lack fit with the culture of settings. When there is too much focus on what others judge to be what young people need to learn, it ‘can easily turn into a deficit organisation, which is not what young people need or expect in these settings’.

Personal and social development. Social and personal development is seen as a core purpose for youth work by many commentators (see Merton et al. 2004). The annual reports of clubs and projects are often illustrated by little case studies of work or of changes in individuals; and the language of workers is full of references to personal development (see Brent 2004; Spence et al. 2007). However, for those using local groups opportunities for personal development are seen as an important aspect of their participation only by a small, but still significant, proportion (see, for example, Gillespie et al. 1992: 66–67). Assessing the impact of the work in this area is fraught with difficulties – and suffers from a certain amount of exaggeration where a target-driven culture dominates. However, there is evidence of personal and social development from reflective personal accounts (see, for example, Rose 1998: 127–133; Williamson 2004) and survey work and interviews (Merton et al. 2004). Merton et al.’s evaluation of youth work in England found that around two-thirds of young people in their survey claimed that youth work had made a considerable difference to their lives (2004: 46–51). The little long-term cohort research that we have confirms that involvement in uniformed groups, and church clubs and groups ‘tend to be associated with positive adult outcomes’ (Feinstein et al. 2007: 17). In contrast, this same research found that attendance at what were described as ‘youth clubs’ (defined as out-of-school-hours clubs for young people, ‘typically run by local education authorities’ but separate from schools (op. cit.: 6)) tended to have ‘worse adult outcomes for many of the measures of adult social exclusion’ (op. cit.: ii). This echoes the findings of research undertaken in the United States (Osgood et al. 1996) and Sweden (Mahoney et al. 2001) during the preceding decade. These results may well reflect, to a significant degree, the social background of those using these different forms of provision – but there could also be issues around the nature of the provision itself.

Relationship and community. Local groups and organisations provide settings where friendships and relationships of different kinds can flourish and grow. Central to this is the relationship between workers and young people. In terms of mentoring, neighbourhood-based youth work can compare well with other initiatives; ‘the exceptionally large amount of time spent together, the willingness to have fun as well as educate, and the involvement of staff with the youth’s family’ all contribute (Hirsch 2005: 132). Furthermore, they are settings where young people ‘connect with broader social institutions and the wider adult community’ and provide non-familial settings in which ‘societal rules for conduct are learned and integral to their emerging sense of self’ (Hirsch 2005: 54). In other words, their associational nature helps to cultivate social capital and community (Smith 2001a; Robertson 2000, 2005).

Appreciation. Local activity involving local people is often better regarded by young people than provision linked to schools or state institutions. As McLaughlin et al. (1994: 5) found in their study of the role of neighbourhood organisations in the lives of ‘inner city youth’ in the USA, these were more likely to appreciate the realities of young people’s lives and interests. Too often programmes and initiatives from ‘outside’ disappointed as they were ‘developed by people unfamiliar with the daily rhythms, pressures and ferocity of the inner cities’ (op. cit.).

The benefits associated with youth work based in civil society raise serious questions around the direction of many current policy preoccupations (Jeffs and Smith 2008). Youth work based in civil society tends to entail long-term, open-ended work defined by local needs and local people. They tend to look more to relationships and the enjoyment of each other’s company (conviviality). Such work is also more communally focused and associational. Furthermore, those involved – both young people and workers – are often suspicious of state involvement, especially where it takes the form of specifying content and monitoring the individual young people involved.

The changing context

Sixty years ago overcrowding and the poor quality of the housing stock occupied by working-class families meant most young people were obliged to leave the house in order to undertake hobbies, meet friends and generally enjoy themselves. All but a tiny proportion were in full-time employment by the age of 15. In addition, many young men were conscripted into the armed forces 3 years later. At home young people usually shared unheated bedrooms with siblings, and the downstairs room with parents and not infrequently grandparents. The street was their playground with the youth club, cafe or dance-hall serving as a welcome refuge and alternative. Except at special times of the year the home was not often a place of entertainment nor somewhere to relax in comfort. Youth workers had a remit to work with these young people in their leisure time, to offer them informal and social education. Some sought them out in the streets (Paneth 1944; Goetschius and Tash 1967), others ran uniformed groups, many managed or worked in youth clubs that provided a range of activities and somewhere warm and welcoming where young people might gather and spend time with friends and friendly adults.

Buildings were then an essential feature of youth work. In urban areas it was not uncommon to find clubs that counted their membership in the hundreds (Jeffs 2005a). But irrespective of whether the young person lived in a rural, suburban or inner-city locale most had...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Title Page
• Copyright
• Contents
• Acknowledgements
• Notes on contributors
• A note on terms
• 1. Introducing youth work
• 2. Relationships, friendship and youth work
• 3. Engaging in conversation
• 4. Being with an other as a professional practitioner: uncovering the nature of working with individuals
• 5. ‘The cultivation of gifts in all directions’: thinking about purpose
• 6. Programmes, programming and practice
• 7. Activities in youth work
• 8. Advising and mentoring
• 9. Enhancing group life and association
• 10. Working with faith
• 11. Managing and developing youth work
• 12. Sustaining ourselves and our enthusiasm
• 13. Monitoring and evaluating youth work
• Conclusion
• References
• Index